Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

7Gbps Wi-Fi Networking Kit Could Launch In 2010

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the yeah-sure-right-uh-huh dept.

Networking 156

Mark.JUK writes "Wireless Local Area Networking (WLAN 802.11) adapters capable of speeds 'up to' 7Gigabits per second could be in stores by the end of this year. The Wireless Gigabit Alliance (WiGig), which seeks to advance the worldwide adoption and use of 60GHz wireless networking technology, has published a unified specification for its approach and opened an Adopter Program. The move means that WiGig members can now begin developing a Wi-Fi kit that uses the unlicensed 60GHz spectrum."

cancel ×

156 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The keyword: (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32153996)

"Could".

Re:The keyword: (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154052)

"Could".

If it's everything they promise then "could" becomes "cloud".

Re:The keyword: (3, Insightful)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154480)

Yep, industries always slows down implementation of new technologies in order to keep sort of a backlog in the pipeline of new technologies available for marketing purposes. By slowing down the pace, they also save in R&D because they make their investment in a given technology more profitable by extending the lifetime of the said technology.

I know some will say that this is contrary to free market rules, the company owning a new technology should rush it out the doors. But the big players might often be involved in some kind of collusion not always known to the general public. Really breakthrough technologies are often bought by the biggest players and put on a shelf.

This is true in all kind of fields. The important thing is to keep the appearance of a free market so consumers are happy ;-)

After all, corporations are there to make to most money possible, not to make the technological world move faster at their own expense.

Re:The keyword: (2, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154910)

I know some will say that this is contrary to free market rules, the company owning a new technology should rush it out the doors. But the big players might often be involved in some kind of collusion not always known to the general public.

OH! I know this one! It's that most insidious of taboos, a practice only endorsed by the greediest and biggest fish in the pond. I think it's called "testing" or "improving reliability" or something.

Re:The keyword: (2, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155038)

Is this the industry that launched 802.11N before the draft specification had even hit 2.0, and 6 years before the spec was finished? That were selling computers "With Vista" (upgrade coupons) almost two years before vista launched? That

I don't disagree that many industries milk adequate-but-not-best technologies because they're more profitable at the moment. But the consumer tech industry has a tendency to push things out the door before they're done.

Re:The keyword: (2, Informative)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155366)

> But the consumer tech industry has a tendency to
> push things out the door before they're done.

Collusion talks don't always end up with agreements. There are some wars going on. In some cases although, when an important monetary impact is unavoidable for all of them, the most important players might come to an agreement. In other cases, you end up with a split decision, where there is more than one side. A group of players on one side and another group of players on another side.

It is still a free market to some level. Only, it is affected by what I explained in my post in such a way that implementation of new technologies is slowed down globally. Avoiding this trivial conclusion would require me to put on pink colored glasses ;-))

Re:The keyword: (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155698)

I don't agree that it is a trivial conclusion in the consumer-grade tech industry. What you're describing is a situation where there are few enough competitors in a market that real competition is not the best way to maximize profits. But Netgear needs to spice up their wireless equipment with new proprietary speed-up extensions, or else a half-dozen other manufacturers will take their top speed crown. Intel needs to push the GHZ up, or they can't sell new computers to the same people.

Sure, sinking another 100 grand in plastic molds is a limiting factor in how fast certain technologies get turned around. But for a lot of consumer-grade tech, there really is a thriving ecosystem. Broadband? No. Title Insurance on your house? No. Power? No. Consumer-grade tech? Yes.

Re:The keyword: (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156000)

> I don't agree that it is a trivial conclusion in the
> consumer-grade tech industry.

You do not have to agree with me, free speech is a good thing ;-)

I will simply remind you that "consumer-grade" is the biggest market simply because there are more customers. This becomes especially true nowadays since more and more people have access to tech industry products compared to the situation a few decades ago.

> What you're describing is a situation where there are few
> enough competitors in a market that real competition
> is not the best way to maximize profits.

If you owned a business, you would realize that competition is never a good way to maximize profits.

Re:The keyword: (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155494)

They have to sell new stuff. Preferably new stuff with brand new intellectual property. Preferably something that makes the old stuff look like drek. Preferably something that has a committee of dozens of people that won't agree, so that as you cite, the draft standard takes nearly a decade to be be ratified. By then, we'll be on to the new 120Ghz platform, with new encoding that will actually get data to you before you ask for it.

Re:The keyword: (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156258)

> By then, we'll be on to the new 120Ghz platform,
> with new encoding that will actually get data to
> you before you ask for it.

Exactly, so they do not have to spend any money on implementing slightly better technologies. They just wait for the next big "quantum leap" for as long as possible before jumping into the band wagon.

Of course, this is the global tendency. So there will be cases where what I state doesn't seem to apply but it is generally what is happening in my humble opinion.

Re:The keyword: (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156480)

It must be working. I got this five minutes ago.

Re:The keyword: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156398)

Is this the industry that launched 802.11N before the draft specification had even hit 2.0, and 6 years before the spec was finished? That were selling computers "With Vista" (upgrade coupons) almost two years before vista launched?

The same industry that after allowing us "bleeding edge" people to purchase said wireless N devices, has ignored the promises on delivering final draft firmware to said draft hardware after more than 6 months now. Aside from iPads, portable n adoption is never even put draft n on chips. Wifi cellphones, portable game systems don't seem to care about more than b/g, so "802.1a" was ignored and n probably will too --"users ain't need to stream nothin' from their home networks to watch in micro screens."

Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (2, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154044)

Will this "new, magical and unicorn-like" WiFi travel further? Far enough for municipal WiFi to effectively cover its citizens? If so then the increased coverage is more important than the speed improvement (even though the speed bump is might impressive).

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (5, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154206)

At 60 GHz? No. It's hard enough getting that to propagate through air, let alone walls. This is for short-range communication exclusively.

"Municipal WiFi" will never happen on a large scale and in the long run, for this reason: If you want signals to propagate, you need to stick to low enough frequencies, and that means there just isn't enough bandwidth to cover a large number of people at the same time. It just barely works now, and bandwidth demand will only grow. Wires are here to stay: You'll still need to wire every house, every apartment, and have local transceivers if you want a wireless connection. There just isn't enough bandwidth in the open air.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (2, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154404)

Well, you are correct that 60 Ghz will be horrible for distance. However, the wiring just has to be smart. There is gigabit powerline ethernet [bestbuy.com] , which requires no additional wiring. So you could have that, and then a wireless AP (7Gbps) in the room if you really want the wireless/ Meanwhile, you may as well just have a regular ethernet line from that powerline ethernet adapter. Really, that thing is pretty portable on it's own and makes me question why people even want wifi in some instances. The portability of these devices is merely limited to an outlet in a house, which is about the same concept of an AP (which has to be plugged in), except that it doesn't get interference from surrounding wifi channels.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32157126)

The power-line Ethernet you link to is a short-distance in-home consumer product (competes with ethernet or wifi, not DSL or cable internet). The municipal (long distance) power-line stuff is no better than utilizing existing phone line or cable wires to the residence. Further, it has a lot of problems not present in DSL or cable internet, such as major RF interference.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154570)

How about an automatically adapting network of "line-of-sight" connections?

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155004)

Or in other words, a city full of little mirrors ;)

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

charliemopps11 (1606697) | more than 4 years ago | (#32157224)

I worked on a project to implament line of site microwave transceivers to deliver internet connections. People disconnected almost as fast as we could connect them. The primary problem is most people don't have line of site to anything. There are tree's buildings, all kinds of crap in the way. And this stuff changes all the time. New buildings go up, trees get taller, more power lines. You're constantly out re-aligning crap. Then you have heat gradients. Fog/smog/rain etc, have little effect on the microwave signal. But heat gradiants in the air create a prism like effect on the microwave signal. So if you have a sunny day where all the roadways heat up but the air a couple of hundred feat up is cool it will act like a lense and bend the microwave signal. This changes with how the heat is layered in the air column and there's nothing you can do about it. Line of site is impossible.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

Therefore I am (1284262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154672)

OTOH, a single Mylar balloon over a major city on a still clear night would allow hundreds to thousands of laser propagated channels at very serious speeds. ----- Think of it as an extension of Ham radio when conditions had to be right for a QSO. It would certainly make a a real fun evening entertainment of collecting a few hundred BR Movies just for the sheer hell of it!

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154944)

It would certainly make a a real fun evening entertainment of collecting a few hundred BR Movies just for the sheer hell of it!

That's.. fun? *speechless*

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155142)

Having worked in a company which used laser networking... that thing was darned touchy. My favorite was the 2 weeks of outages we tended to have during the spring for 2 hours every afternoon. Nobody knew why. Eventually it was discovered that at those moments, the sun happened to reflect off of the building JUST RIGHT to blind the laser. Other times it just went down for mysterious orientation reasons, dead boards, etc. Most weather wasn't bad, but fog was a bane of existence.

I love laser networking technology. But it's not exactly at fire-and-forget consumer grade level yet.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155696)

Yeah, and getting the darn sharks to hold still...

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154716)

Yeah, no kidding, it's hard enough to get it to propagate in the test setups! Just the coaxes alone are lossy, the connections are lossy, and the test instruments are hard to set up. At home I have a 14GHz sampler setup, and I find measurements are only repeatable if I take care of my stuff.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

digitalchinky (650880) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154232)

Not at 60GHz, you'll be lucky if it makes it through your hair thick Japanese paper wall dividers : )

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (3, Informative)

bcomisky (47607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154238)

Will this "new, magical and unicorn-like" WiFi travel further? Far enough for municipal WiFi to effectively cover its citizens? If so then the increased coverage is more important than the speed improvement (even though the speed bump is might impressive).

At 60GHz you need line-of-sight to make a connection.. walls, buildings, trees, are all a signal killer; much more so than at 2.5/5 GHz. In general in a cluttered environment, your signal will propagate further with a longer wavelength (lower frequency, think AM/FM radio). So in short, no. It will not travel as far.

For line of sight point-to-point applications you can get very high gain from a 60GHz dish (same size dish as 2.5GHz is electrically much larger in wavelengths), though they will probably be more expensive with the tighter manufacturing tolerances required for the smaller feed parts.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156794)

Now, my problem with increasing frequencies is the high power reqs and loss of penetration through walls. This only exacerbates our currently unfixed wireless problems. The promissed transfer rates of wireless mean nothing when you aren't in near-lab conditions... I have a myriad of problems even though my laptop is about between 2 and 10 feet away from the AP.

Linux media players (Ubuntu, Centos and Mandriva) on Gnome and KDE play remote files OK in a burpless wired connection, but crash infinitely more than Windows over wireless. On any OS anywhere I've been, file copy experiences over wireless suck at a/b/g or n speeds, and any 5000+ file copy will be interrupted several times. "copy command" operations are a pain because there's no "interrupted over wireless time, please continue exactly where you left" AFAIK. I just mv files in order to know exactly which files are left on the obligatory Samba disconnects.

Unknown wireless interference frequently drops all channels every couple hours where I live... wireless reauthentication kills your movie session as the media players crash, or automatically return to index 0:00:00 without tagging where your movie was. You'll have to guess where the movie stopped and possibly overshoot the mark as well.

Back on topic, better file speeds are only good if you have single huge files that you can suck in before your next disconnect. N speeds are rarely at their max now, and I don't think 7Gbps will be a breakthrough in penetration and stability. A, G and N haven't fixed stability yet, and these guys said nothing about robustness. The SMB protocol needs better built-in drop recovery as well. Something more like transparent flash video buffering and metadata on last-opened file and seek position would be welcome.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154250)

The higher the frequency the worse the propagation.
Already 5 GHz is a step down from 2.4 GHz when it comes to penetrating walls.
There's a reason long range wireless technologies use lower frequencies (and that's not only reflection off the ionosphere).

Just consider how weak satellite TV-signals are, and those usually only travel a few 100 kilometers off of 100-Watt-class emitters. Here the high frequencies are probably chosen to prevent reflection off the ionosphere...
Beyond 300 Ghz, even the athmosphere becomes opaque...

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154868)

"Beyond 300 Ghz, even the athmosphere becomes opaque..."

Until you hit the THz, like visible light...

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154916)

According to their site, with beamforming, the range is around 10m: http://wirelessgigabitalliance.org/specifications [wirelessgi...liance.org]

I wouldn't hold my breath on this becoming a standard. Now, something they say on this page does interest me; it looks like it is marketed for PC peripherals and display interfaces. You might see this being more common as a wireless HDMI, or wireless link for that portable hard drive. In this use, line of site and range isn't a big deal, so kind of a replacement for Bluetooth type uses, as well as expanding it to domains where it doesn't have the speed to perform.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

jimbolauski (882977) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155120)

No a 60GHz signal at 10w transmitted 30 feet would have the same power as a 10W, 3GHz signal at 3 miles.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156362)

Generalized mobile high speed internet access is not a matter of technology at this point. It is all about politics.

Re:Speed=Good, but How About Distance? (1)

nomoreunusednickname (1471615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156420)

I, for one, am waiting for pringles to make a mini chips can to use as a 60Gig cantenna.

Indeed. (-1, Redundant)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154062)

How 'bout it folks? Would you still give up a wired ethernet connection for one of these?

No (5, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154248)

Because wired has less problems. Wireless is nice in that, well, it doesn't require wires. So no cables to run. Less hassle in terms of physical effort, and you can move around while using it but that's where the advantages end. Wired has some big advantages:

1) Security. With wireless, there is always the issue of other people listening to your signal. Unless you live in a farady cage, you can't control where that signal goes. That means you have to deal with shit like encrypting the entire signal. That takes additional configuration to make work, and additional hardware to accomplish at high speeds. While AES isn't particularly intensive, try doing it at a gigabit. It'll hit a modern CPU hard and no way some cheap embedded device pulls it off without ASICs to help.

2) Contention. With a wireless system, you are all using the same bandwidth. This means it doesn't scale well with more connections. The more computers you have on it, the lower your total throughput. Not a problem with wired connections, each computer gets dedicated bandwidth to the switch. So I can transfer to you at full bandwidth while two other people also transfer at full bandwidth and there's no contention.

3) Range. Even under pretty good conditions, wireless doesn't match up to the distance you can get from a normal Cat-6 run (100 meters). Of course you also have wired technology for longer runs (like fiber), or you can simply have a switch repeat the signal.

4) Simplicity. While it is more work to lay the wires, once done you have less effort. A system just plugs in and all necessary information can be provided to it, no config necessary. With wireless, configuration must be done on the client machine, at least if any encryption is to be involved.

5) Reliability. Wireless just has problems. Be it interference from other devices on the same band, dead zones, weather, whatever, you can lose wireless signal because of too low a SNR. Not the case with a wired connection. They tend to always work, unless the cable breaks and that is quite rare.

6) Speed. Whatever you can do with wireless, you can probalby do better with wired. Just tends to be the case. This is particularly true if you include fiber in the wired category, but even if not. Right now N is as good as it gets wireless which gets maybe 100mbps of throughput max in terms of actual data (300mbps data rate, but there's tons of overhead). 1gpbs wired is common, 10gbps is available over regular twisted pair. Faster is being developed for normal twisted pair, and faster is already available for fiber or something like CX4.

Nothing wrong with wireless, but it is an addition to wired, not a replacement. I have a WAP so that I can use my laptop everywhere in my house. However my desktop, my Blu-ray, etc are all hard wired. I don't see that changing.

Re:No (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154368)

Number one at least is hugely alleviated at 60Ghz.
If those waves propagate through windowpanes, I'd be amazed...

but everything else is the real deal-killer anyway.
A plugged wire either works, doesn't work or intermittently works. Getting a wire that works is pretty easy and a surefire solution to all medium-issues. Wireless on the other hand ALWAYS works intermittently....except when it doesn't work at all.

Re:No (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154398)

True it wouldn't be much of an issue in the home, but at a business? Still a problem. With a wired connection at work I can say to a high degree of confidence that nobody can snoop my traffic. You'd have to either install a physical tap on the wire (that runs through conduit in the wall) or bust in to a switch and convince it to mirror the data. Either way is highly unfeasible. However with wireless? Just get a computer in range and listen in.

Re:No (1)

LiENUS (207736) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155946)

There are encryption schemes for wireless, some of them are actually pretty good.

Re:No (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156618)

Physical security generally trumps software security solutions. For snooping wireless you need to be close. For snooping wired you need to have physical access to the hardware. Wired definitely discourages casual "drive by" cracking attempts.

Re:No (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154478)

Nothing wrong with wireless, but it is an addition to wired, not a replacement. I have a WAP so that I can use my laptop everywhere in my house. However my desktop, my Blu-ray, etc are all hard wired. I don't see that changing.

Agreed, but there are a lot of very uninformed people who think that wireless is a perfectly good replacement for wired in the home. This is creating a situation where too many houses are running wireless and they're all interfering with each other. It doesn't help that the default Tx power on wireless router firmwares is set to SCREAM mode.

The good news is that at 60 Ghz while the 'up to' 7Gbps wireless standard will likely cause people to continue to think this way, but at least the signal won't make it out past their own walls.

Re:No (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154702)

Yup. A couple of months ago a friend of mine was complaining to me that he couldn't get good wireless coverage over his house. He described the set-up: a Netgear ADSL router and base station, an Apple Airport Extreme base station connected over Cat5, and an Apple Airport Express as a wireless range extender. He had already spent hours fiddling with channel allocations and power settings, and had already asked the neighbours what channels they are using.

My solution? Turn off the Airport Express and set the Netgear router to be a router only (no wi-fi) so that the Airport Extreme is the only base station. Instant perfect reception all over the house and garden.

Re:No (0)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154490)

Contention. With a wireless system, you are all using the same bandwidth

So my two wireless routers don't work on different channels? Wireless routers / access points are so cheap there's no reason you can't have more than one. We had 3 at the office (2 authorized and one *cough* for testing *cough*). There were never any issues.

Re:No (1)

Chibi Merrow (226057) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154642)

You didn't understand the point. The routers are working on different channels, but everyone connected to a single wireless router are all on the same channel. So unless each device has its own AP, the bandwidth is shared.

Re:No (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155360)

To add to the other poster's response, there really are just 3 wireless channels in the US: 1, 6, and 11. 1 actually ranges from 1 - 3, 6 ranges from 4 - 8, 11 ranges from 9 - 11.

There are about 28 wireless networks that my computer can see at the moment, all of which are consuming the airspace in one of those 3 channels. Because of this, networks will barely propogate through an entire apartment. If you need to hit two apartments, or a back porch, you need to put up more than one router, making the problem that much worse for the people around you.

Re:No (1)

wadeal (884828) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154600)

3) Range. Even under pretty good conditions, wireless doesn't match up to the distance you can get from a normal Cat-6 run (100 meters). Of course you also have wired technology for longer runs (like fiber), or you can simply have a switch repeat the signal.

I recently worked as a wireless internet technician, setting up 60-70km wireless links using 200-300 AUD equipment using either 2.4ghz or 900mhz (external antenna with router built in). Speed was atleast 3-4 mbit/s at the lowest upto 10mbit on a decent connection. Plenty of speed for an internet connection Kinda beats your shitty 100 metres : /

Re:No (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154714)

Yes, the price also kinda beats the free (included in laptop) and $30 (wireless N router) that the typical home user will pay.

Re:No (1)

AdamsGuitar (1171413) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154744)

I live in a faraday cage, you insensitive clod!

Re:No (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155312)

6) Speed.

When my provider only gives me 7mbps for a reasonable fee (relatively), a G router, let alone an N are plenty. Are there any home use providers in the US that would give you anything approaching speeds where even G couldn't keep up? Even for the foreseeable future? There's nothing Cox provides on their roadmap I've seen that does.

My Blu-ray is wireless-bridged (G). Plenty fast enough for any download material or even HD Netflix streaming.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156666)

These days it's pretty common to have more than one computer at a household. Not that all of them will be trying to connect their computers with wires, but they do have that option and setting up file sharing on Windows is easy.

real bandwidth (2, Interesting)

ZyBex (793975) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154080)

What's the real bw available? 2 Gbps?
With 802.11n we get max 90Mbps from the carrier's 300; that's only 30% eficiency. I hope it's better this time.

Doesn't Matter if Throttled (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154090)

It doesn't matter if you're throttled. I barely use bandwidth, and I'm still throttled all to hell.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (4, Insightful)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154160)

> It doesn't matter if you're throttled. I barely use bandwidth, and I'm still throttled all to hell.

That's only true if your only IP traffic is via your throttled connection to the Internet. Who doesn't have a big media file server somewhere on their LAN these days?

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154172)

Me.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154356)

Me, and I don't have any friends that do either.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154530)

I could be your friend with the terabyte media box, but I refuse to go on farcebook.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154538)

I don't know anyone other than me who does. That's still nerd stuff.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155786)

Who doesn't have a big media file server somewhere on their LAN these days?

I don't.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (1)

bmecoli (963615) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154162)

It matters if you use a lot of LAN bandwidth like file sharing or streaming HD content.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154264)

True, but this kit is also quite tasty for streaming HD content around your house.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154986)

To streaming HD content over your house, 802.11g is enough.
With this new protocol, you would only be able to transmit signal in the same room, in line of sight, not housewide.

Re:Doesn't Matter if Throttled (1)

Grizzley9 (1407005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155382)

Yup, at least what Netlix calls it's HD signal, g is plenty.

Still WLAN, not everywhere (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154138)

Faster networking speeds in the home and office (and coffee shops, I guess) is always a good thing, and we should hope that technologies that bring this about continue to progress.

But the real problem for many mobile users is networking speeds outside the office. At customer sites, in transit, and during leisure time activities, having fast, reliable network access is still a dream. You can expect slow and unreliable cellular service most places, but it's like stepping back to the bad old days of 56kbps to use the cellular data network.

More WiMax and other truly ubiquitous wireless networks are what is really needed at this time. That means both support at the infrastructure level as well as the personal hardware level. When we are truly free to move around and access data anywhere we want, there will be a huge explosion of uptake and new users, I think.

Oh crap! (3, Funny)

Dishwasha (125561) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154202)

I'd better prepare the tin foil to head off my 60Ghz allergy.

Re:Oh crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156008)

Silly as you're trying to be, tin foil would be enough for this stuff.

60GHz? (1)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154336)

Am I correct in thinking that as the frequency of microwave radiation increases towards the infrared end (1THz), the radiation behaves more like infrared, i.e. impermeable through the thermal insulation of buildings? 60Ghz seems a big jump from the usual 2-5GHz for wifi.

not a "mobile" technology (4, Interesting)

dmoen (88623) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154340)

As I understand it, this is a replacement for running a fibre optic link between your house and your ISP. Instead, you mount an antenna on your roof, which engages in narrow beam, line of sight 60 GHz communication with your ISP. I think the benefits are that it is potentially cheaper than running a fibre optic cable to your house. The signal is attenuated by rain, and by atmospheric oxygen. I doubt the signal can travel very well through walls. And I don't think it is useful for mobile devices.

Doug Moen

Re:not a "mobile" technology (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154406)

Be great for sharing an Internet connection among a remote rural community though. One of these to pointed at the ISP and a bunch more forming a mesh network.

Re:not a "mobile" technology (1)

markdueck (796208) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154988)

At 60 Ghz, weather will affect it - a lot. 60Ghz is quite impractical and I don't see any reason to be pushing for this. I doubt that it will reliably go through any wall. You might as well go with the new wireless 'light' technology where you have to have Live-of-Sight. e.g. http://bit.ly/6XKJLc [bit.ly]

Re:not a "mobile" technology (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155138)

Be great for sharing an Internet connection among a remote rural community though. One of these to pointed at the ISP and a bunch more forming a mesh network.

Ignore FCC regs and you can get 100 miles using satellite dishes and 802.11b. If you don't cause any interference, they won't be knocking at your door.

Re:not a "mobile" technology (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156722)

Ignore FCC regs and you can get 100 miles using satellite dishes and 802.11b. If you don't cause any interference, they won't be knocking at your door.

I have my doubts. I've done 45 miles LOS with 900MHz and 17dbi yagis. 2.4GHz won't have nearly the penetration, and I'm not sure the increased gain of a pair of dishes would make up for it.

Then there's that little issue of the curvature of the earth. Even if you can get .11b to penetrate 100 miles of air, well, good luck finding 2 points with 100 miles of nothing but air between them. I'm not saying it's impossible, just way less likely than a person might infer from reading your post.

Re:not a "mobile" technology (1)

Locklin (1074657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32157292)

You can get several miles line-of sight without boosting power just by using dishes and a good home made collector. Additionally, some of the 802.11 channels are in the amateur bands, so if you get your HAM license, you can use all the power you need legally (again, ensuring you don't cause interference to other users -ie., directional only).

Sooo considering... (1)

sarkeizen (106737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154358)

That the promise of 100Mb/s over WiFi really isn't realized i.e. 802.11n in every piece of equipment I've had my hands on delivers about 32Mb/s and in the same test with 100Mb Ethernet I get about 64Mb/s. It's kind of hard to take this seriously or that we simply have to take all pronouncements from the WiFi consortium at a severe "discount". Mind you if for some reason this difference was proportional to the other promises (and I can see no reason why it has to be). Even getting 1Gb/s over WiFi would be a drastic improvement. Somehow I doubt that this is the case though.

Re:Sooo considering... (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154442)

WiFi is simplex, meaning that it tx and rx half the time, so your bandwidth is necessarily less than half the marketing fluff figure.

Re:Sooo considering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155608)

I think the more usual term for that is half duplex, with simplex being strictly one-way. But definitions vary. And half duplex doesn't need to be split 50:50 between trasmit and receive.

Re:Sooo considering... (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156866)

You cannot get better than about half [oreillynet.com] of your nominal throughput, at least on .11a or .11g. Ubiquiti advertises 100mbps of real throughput [ubnt.com] on their non-mimo .11n radios, which connect nominally at 150mbps. And yeah, that's combined up and down.

This is going to suck for most uses (4, Informative)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154366)

So the higher the frequency of your signal, the more bandwidth you can get. Easy to understand why. However there is a tradeoff, and that is distance/penetration. Low frequency signals can travel extremely long distances, and penetrate through material well. The ultimate example is the sub communication systems like Seafarer. That system, operating at a 76Hz carrier, could penetrate the entire Earth and send signals to submerged subs anywhere, at a rate of about 3 characters per minute.

So as you go up, the opposite is true. Go up to the 100s of GHz and you can carry astounding amounts of data if you like, but you find that the air itself will attenuate your signal a whole lot, and forget about a wall or the like.

This is why there's competition for various ranges of the spectrum, like 700MHz. One range is not as good as any other. Were that the case, we'd have no problem as there is plenty of space up in the high GHz range. However it's not. Low frequency spectrum can be very useful for things.

At 60GHz, you are going to need line of sight pretty much. It might penetrate a bit of stuff, but you can forget about having an access point 5 rooms over that goes through a few walls.

For a point-to-point outdoor link it'd work ok, though it would be the kind of thing that would suffer from reduced data rate or a completely dropped signal in the rain and rain plays hell on signals that high frequency.

So I can see it for special cases, but the next WiFi it will not be.

Re:This is going to suck for most uses (1)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155216)

"So the higher the frequency of your signal, the more bandwidth you can get. Easy to understand why. However there is a tradeoff, and that is distance/penetration."

I think most geeks here would be thrilled to penetrate at any distance...

Doesn't matter. (5, Interesting)

adolf (21054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154382)

For most practical purposes, 60GHz signals don't penetrate anything. They just bounce around like light.

This stuff might be good for fixed point-to-point links, but that's about it.

I've worked a bit with existing 60GHz products, and while they're generally faster than greased shit, the alignment of them is typically very critical and, sometimes, even seasonal. This isn't the sort of product that would be useful for municipal wifi, except perhaps as a backhaul between 802.11 radios.

Of course, like any new product where there's money to be made, the marketers will claim that it slices, it dices, and it makes Julienne fries. Caveat emptor, etc. (But wait! There's more! If you act now, the sky will always be blue, you'll always be young, and you'll ejaculate rainbows.)

Meh.

Re:Doesn't matter. (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154594)

I suspect, for consumer products, that the main target will be the (alleged? I've never been able to tell exactly how real it is) hatred of and confusion about wires possessed by Joe Average. Just wander into your living room, and your HDTV is automagically connected to your laptop, buy a new external drive(and plug it into the wall, because wireless power ain't there yet) and it automagically connects, and so forth.

If it is actually that LOS dependent, it isn't entirely clear that this will all be less confusion than just running a couple of wires, though, if the chipsets can silently fall back to 5GHz or 2.4GHz, at reduced speeds; but without actually breaking things as far as software can see, it might be OK.

On the other hand, where this sort of thing might get genuinely interesting, would be if emitters and receivers suitable for very short range could be fabricated directly on silicon. Being able to do die stacking just by putting one die on top of the other, and connecting power to both, and letting them chat wirelessly over very short range could save a considerable amount of money now spent on teeny-tiny gold wires, and the attachment thereof...

Hatred of Wires (1)

FlightlessParrot (1217192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156960)

Hatred of wires may not be possessed by Joe Average, but it is by Jane Average. In the living room, this counts. See also WAF.

Re:Doesn't matter. (2, Interesting)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32157282)

"60GHz signals don't penetrate anything. They just bounce around like light"

You're not just kidding about that. Police Ka-band traffic radar operates at around 34Ghz, specifically *because* it reflects so well. It's not going to get any better at a higher frequency.

I'll wait (2, Funny)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154400)

For my ansible

Please. Someone tell me. What is the point (1)

ebonum (830686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154434)

My internet connection ( DSL ) can't come anywhere near saturating my 802.11g router's 54Gbps. If my wireless connection is 10Mbps or 100Gbps, what does it matter? Unless I have a fiber optic line running to my home, how do I benefit from faster wireless? So at work I can open my TPS report off the local outlook server a fraction of a second more quickly?

I'm limited by the speed of my DSL, not the wireless connection speed.

Re:Please. Someone tell me. What is the point (2, Informative)

QBasicer (781745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154574)

Perhaps sharing files between computers on a network? Backing up your hard-drive to another machine? That's lots of reasons to have a faster network, without a faster internet speed.

Re:Please. Someone tell me. What is the point (3, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154616)

My internet connection ( DSL ) can't come anywhere near saturating my 802.11g router's 54Gbps.

You have an 802.11g router that's rated at 54 Gbps?

Unless I have a fiber optic line running to my home,

The cable company ran fibre down the next street last year. They're offering 50mpbs now (+ phone + video on demand, so there's enough headroom that they could easily offer 100mbps), and they'll keep upping it every few years, as demand (marketing) warrants.

how do I benefit from faster wireless

Most homes have more than one computer nowadays. Moving files between them, or to / from your smartphone?

Also, since you finish transmitting the data quicker, you free up the channel for other users that much quicker.

Re:Please. Someone tell me. What is the point (1)

ebonum (830686) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154836)

Doh! 54Mbps. Not to self. Drink more coffee before reading slashdot.

I don't know many people with access to fiber. I know. It is coming. Someday.

Most of the time, moving things around involves hitting the internet. A small pipe. I back-up to a USB drive. In many homes, most average Windows users who have never heard of slashdot aren't able to get them networked. It is too complicated. They use gmail to e-mail files from one computer to another. Through the small pipe again. I know. Apple fans have it easy.

The iPhone has this cool thing for moving movies. It is a cute little white wire with a USB plug...

In Japan, this could be more useful.

If you truly need speed, you most likely also need a desktop - which would most likely have a fast cable connection.

Re:Please. Someone tell me. What is the point (1)

Xenomorph.NET (969401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154708)

WiFi isn't just for Internet, you know. I have multiple computers in different rooms at my house. My options were to drill holes, run, cut & crimp Cat6, buy some Gigabit switches, etc - or use WiFi. I went with WiFi at first. 54 Mbps IS plenty for Internet. But then I started copying games, ISOs/software, and multi-gig movies from one system to another. I started copying my movie library from my main system to a system by my TV. Suddenly, it became PAINFULLY obvious that WiFi would NOT cut it. Even when I tried to stream HD content from one system to another, it started to get choppy. I ended up drilling holes, running cable, etc. 1,000 Mbps is a lot better. That is still the weakest link between the systems. I get 30-60 MB/s that way, when I know I could be transferring 70-110 MB/s with my hard drives. If it was WiFi, a 2+ Gbps connection would be ideal. If it was stable, and it reached all rooms at my house (some are 2-3 rooms away from my current AP). Until I can get that, wired Gigabit is the way to go.

Re:Please. Someone tell me. What is the point (2)

eyrieowl (881195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154820)

Well, as others pointed out, there's other reasons for having a fast network other than internet access; and you can't expect that your broadband speed won't *eventually* go up. However, I completely agree that broadband speed is seriously lagging what it probably should be. Yes, I'm sure there's any number of posters who can say they've got some special, wonderful fibre hookup, but that isn't yet available to the majority of people. And, honestly, until it is, a faster home network just isn't tremendously exciting.

Re:Please. Someone tell me. What is the point (1)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154874)

One of the ideas behind this was for sending hi-def video over wireless. So instead of tons of cables connecting av devices together, they could all aim for this standard.

interesting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154552)

"WiFi is simplex, meaning that it tx and rx half the time, so your bandwidth is necessarily less than half the marketing fluff figure."

-MiMo... heard of it?

WiGig (1)

QBasicer (781745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154558)

That's a poorly chosen word, it makes me want to say wig-ig instead of wi-gig.

You can't see 7Mbps yet... (1, Funny)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154774)

...but you CAN see this.

WAAAOOOW!

Oh myyyyyy......

/george takei

ma8qe (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32154886)

continues to lose THINKING ABOUT IT. dying. See? It's and suggesting disgust, or been coming a piss BSD sux0rs. What distribution. As

Feature inflation... (2, Insightful)

Five Bucks! (769277) | more than 4 years ago | (#32154958)

Consumer companies will jump on this shit like crazy just to maintain teh price point of wireless routers and APs. I always expected to get a 802.11g router for cheap once 802.11n came out. Instead, it's harder to find g routers.

To me, and most people I know, a new 802.11 standard won't mean a row of beans and yet they'll still have to shell out $50 to buy a new router when they spill their coffee on it.

Re:Feature inflation... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156674)

A few months ago, I walked into a store, "Give me the cheapest WLAN router you have", and I walked away with a 802.11g router, and the store was happy to take my 20 euro. Yeah, really hard to get.

Re:Feature inflation... (1)

clarkn0va (807617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32157210)

This thing [ncix.com] goes on sale almost every month, and there is a $10 rebate every month. I've deployed 10 or so recently and never had a rebate not come back. Throw Tomato on in and you will be one happy camper. I'm using one currently for a 2-link bonded DSL connection and it passes 10/1 mbps day and night with full QoS. There's no router platform that can touch it under $100, at which point you start looking at m0n0wall, pfsense, or something Linux-based.

This has problems... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155780)

I am surprised no one mentioned this in comments: the 60GHz band is unlicensed because it is impractical to use it. The Oxygen molecule has a resonance at 60GHz and highly attenuates most electromagnetic radiation around the 60GHz band. This means one wastes a lot of power while broadcasting around 60GHz, making the band pretty much useless. The English wikipedia article on 'Attenuation' has the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Micrwavattrp.png which shows a graph of attenuation in air vs. frequency. It is something like 0.008dB/km at 10GHz and something like 6dB/km at 60GHz.

I for one think this is not going to be practical.

Re:This has problems... (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | more than 4 years ago | (#32157406)

The good news is that they aren't trying to broadcast on the km scale. 60GHz would require and obscene amount of power to go that distance, but if you're only looking to get signal from a few meters, it could work out at a reasonable wattage.

10Gps wired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156742)

We can't even get 10Gbps wired in the stores--not anywhere close to a reasonable price point--and that technology has been around for several years.

The only way this wireless technology gets into stores this year is if it functions essentially like the existing $700 paired HDTV transmitters. There's no multiple point-to-point, routing functionality and it's close range only.

7 gigs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32157354)

maybe I'm being slow here, but none of my computers can cope with data coming in at 7gbps.
A couple of them have 1gbps NICs but the bottle neck for getting an actual sustained flow of data into the CPU is still the speed of the ISA bus (since none of the promised next generation of super fast buses ever actually appeared in any hardware)

what the hell protocol will you be using that has 1400% overheads? I think it's time to redesign the protocol in that case, rather than throwing more hardware at the problem :)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>